251208.mbx

251208.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 8, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 244 Headlines A-1 COLLECTION: "Fullmer" Class Settlement Wins Final Court OK ANTHROPIC PBC: $1.5-Bil. Class Settlement to be Heard on April 23 APPFOLIO INC: Houdek Class Suit Filed in C.D. Calif. APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal APPLOVIN CORP: Faces Brownback Shareholder Suit in CA Court APPLOVIN CORP: Quiero Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed APPLOVIN CORP: WCERS Drops Shareholder Suit AVOCADO MATTRESS: Islas Seeks to Certify Class Action BETTERHELP INC: Parties Seek to Reset Class Cert Hearing Date BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Garcia Wins Class Certification Bid BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Car Owners Lose Class Cert Bid BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY: Court Approves "Garcia" Class Settlement CAKE 5332: Alvarez Seeks to Certify Class Action CAPITOL FEDERAL: Continues to Defend Harding Class Suit in Kansas CHARLES SCHWAB: Class Settlement in Corrente Gets Final Nod COZY EARTH: Removes Hendrix Class Suit to W.D. Wash. DELTA AIR LINES: Devaney Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class DELTA AIR LINES: Seeks to File Unredacted Docs Under Seal DONALD TRUMP: Thakur Seeks Provisional Class Certification EXELON CORP: $40MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 18 FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sullivan-Blake Says GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 11, 2026 JANI-KING INT'L: Amended Class Certification Sched Order Entered LIFEMD INC: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in "Johnston" META PLATFORMS: Filing of Declaration Docs Under Seal Sought MISSOURI: Darrington Suit Seeks to Certify Classes NAVIENT CORP: Ballard Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Memo NAVIENT CORP: Ballard Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses PEEK TRAVEL: Court Narrows Claims in Montgomery Class Suit PERDUE FOODS: "Tripp" Plaintiffs Must Produce Tax Returns REALPAGE INC: Bid to Enforce Class Action Waiver Partly OK'd REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California RESURGENT CAPITAL: Palmer Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices STAR POWER: Garcia Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class STERLING FUND: $4.85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 13 SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd SUBARU OF AMERICA: Aquino Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Decker Securities Class Suit SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Traina Securities Class Suit SYRACUSE HAULERS: Sims Suit Referred to Mandatory Mediation Program TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Class Cert Filing Amended to Sept. 4, 2026 TROY MEINK: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for Jan. 16, 2026 TYSON FOODS: Awaits Court OK of Deal in Maryland Wage Rate Suit TYSON FOODS: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Beef Antitrust Suit TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Beef Antitrust Suits in Canada TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Pork Antitrust Suit TYSON FOODS: Settlement in Colorado Wage Rate Suit Has Final OK VIRTU FINANCIAL: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 22, 2026 WALT DISNEY: Class Suit Filed in C.D. Calif. WHITESTONE HOME: Mattress Contains Toxic Chemicals, Levin Says WOODRIDGE CAPITAL: Class Cert Filing Continued to March 16, 2026 ********* A-1 COLLECTION: "Fullmer" Class Settlement Wins Final Court OK -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Fullmer, Sean McIntyre, Sabrina Provo, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. A-1 Collection Agency, LLC, and Moab Valley Healthcare, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00143-DN-PK, District Judge David Nuffer of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted final approval of a class action settlement. Plaintiffs Sean McIntyre and Sabrina Provo filed this action alleging that Defendants publicly disclosed private information as part of their attempts to collect on medical debt, thereby violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, and common law. Defendants denied that they violated any statute, engaged in any misconduct, or harmed Plaintiffs. The case has been pending since December 2020 and involved substantial litigation, including motions for summary judgment and class certification. After arms-length negotiations over many months between Plaintiffs and Defendants, the parties reached an agreement to settle this action on a class basis. Under the Settlement, Defendants will provide three years credit monitoring and payment of $900 to each class member. Conditional class certification was granted on July 6, 2023. On August 11, 2025, preliminary approval to the parties' proposed settlement was granted. Following the preliminary approval, Class Counsel sent notices via first class mail to all class members at their last known address. The notice informed the class members of their right to opt out and provided an exclusion deadline of October 13, 2025. No class member elected to opt out. The notices further advised the class members that they could assert objections to the proposed settlement by October 13, 2025. No class member elected to object to the settlement. On November 24, 2025, a fairness hearing was held during which the parties' counsel provided information and arguments in favor of final approval of the settlement. At the hearing's conclusion, it was determined that final approval of the settlement is appropriate. Judge Nuffer noted " The Court may approve a class settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) only after a hearing and only on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate after considering whether: (A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm's length; (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees, and any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other. In addition to the four factors set forth under Rule 23(e)(2), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals requires that courts consider the following four Rutter factors: (1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. The Court found that this class settlement meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and the Rutter factors. Class Counsel adequately represented the class throughout the course of this action. The parties reached their settlement through arms-length negotiations. The relief provided for the class is adequate. The settlement treats class members equitably relative to each other. The settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated. Serious questions of law still exist that would place the outcome of this litigation in doubt if it were to proceed to trial, including Plaintiffs' ability to establish damages, allocation of fault among Defendants, and whether an agency relationship existed among Defendants. The value of immediate recovery and dismissal of claims outweighs the mere possibility of a more favorable outcome after further litigation. The parties are convinced that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Cy Pres If any of the settlement funds are not collected by the class members, the parties proposed the remainder be given to Utah Legal Services to bolster its debt collection defense services. Utah Legal Services assists the disadvantaged and those of limited means with legal representation in various matters including debt collection. Access to counsel promotes greater accountability by collectors and encourages compliance with consumer protection statutes. Therefore, Utah Legal Services is an appropriate recipient for the cy pres as the next best beneficiary. The parties proposed an incentive fee to the named Plaintiffs of $3,500 each. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed that class representatives should be compensated for the time and effort invested in the case, including monitoring class counsel, being deposed by opposing counsel, keeping informed of the progress of the litigation, and serving as a client for purposes of approving any proposed settlement with the defendant. The named Plaintiffs spent time monitoring the case and assisting when needed. The named Plaintiffs were each deposed on the merits of their claims and their suitability to serve as class representatives. The named Plaintiffs further participated in the prolonged settlement discussions throughout the litigation. Based on the time and effort spent by the named Plaintiffs, and considering the monetary awards other class members will receive under the settlement, a $3,500 incentive fee for each named Plaintiff is appropriate, fair, and reasonable. Separate and apart from the class settlement, the parties negotiated attorney's fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $75,000. This sum also covers litigation and class administrations costs. Class Counsel Daniel Bazynski represented that his hourly rate is $425, which fits within the range of reasonable rates for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cases in Utah. Class Counsel further represented that he spent more than 300 hours over the past five years litigating this case. The lodestar amount, therefore, exceeds $127,500, far more than the $75,000 requested. Class Counsel worked over 300 billable hours on this case. This includes multiple dispositive motions, a contested class certification motion, and negotiating the settlement. This case involved novel and difficult questions of law. These questions include whether Defendants' disclosure of private information violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, what evidence is sufficient to establish knowledge or intent under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, and whether damages are available as class-wide relief for a Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act class in an action pending before the federal court. Given the novelty of the issues, this case involved more skill than a garden variety class action. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act allow for the recovery of reasonable attorney's fees. Plaintiffs informed the Court that this case was initially taken on a contingency fee basis. This case has been pending for five years, and Class Counsel has represented Plaintiffs from the start. Each class member will receive $900 from the common fund and three years of credit monitoring. For the above-stated reasons, the class settlement, the cy pres, the incentive fee award, and the attorney's fees award are appropriate, fair, and reasonable. Accordingly, the parties' Motion is granted. The parties' class settlement is given final approval, the cy pres is approved, the incentive fee award is approved, and the attorney's fees award is approved. The parties are directed to file the necessary documents for resolution and disposition of this case upon completion of the relevant terms and actions required by their settlement agreement. A copy of the Court's class settlement order signed November 26, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4jtY8I from PacerMonitor.com ANTHROPIC PBC: $1.5-Bil. Class Settlement to be Heard on April 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed class action settlement was reached in the lawsuit, Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, which claimed that Anthropic infringed copyrights by downloading allegedly pirated datasets containing copyrighted books. Anthropic denies the allegations. Authors, publishers, and copyright owners may be Class Members and benefit from the Settlement if they own the copyright of a work included in the LibGen or PiLiMi datasets downloaded by Anthropic. More details and a searchable database of all books included in the settlement are available at www.AnthropicCopyrightSettlement.com. Class Members have the following options: 1. File a Claim by March 30, 2026 to receive payment from the $1.5 billion Settlement Fund. 2. Exclude Yourself and All Rightsholders (or Opt Out) by January 15, 2026 to give up all rights to receive payment from this Settlement and have the option to bring your own separate lawsuit against Anthropic for the claims this Settlement resolves. 3. Object by January 15, 2026 if you disagree with the Settlement and want to remain a Class Member. 4. Do nothing. You may or may not receive money from the Settlement, and you are not guaranteed a payment unless you submit a valid Claim Form. The Court scheduled a hearing for April 23, 2026, at 12:00 PT at the San Francisco Federal Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom 12 – 19th Floor, to consider whether to approve the Settlement. The Court will also consider Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the Settlement Fund, reimbursement for other costs and expenses, and service payments of up to $50,000 to each Class Representative, as well as any objections. Contact Information: Visit: www.AnthropicCopyrightSettlement.com Email: info@AnthropicCopyrightSettlement.com Call: 1-877-206-2314 Write: Bartz v Anthropic c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91204 Seattle, WA 98111 Complete copies of the pleadings, orders and other publicly filed documents in the lawsuit may also be accessed for a fee through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov. APPFOLIO INC: Houdek Class Suit Filed in C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AppFolio, Inc. The case is captioned as JEFFREY HOUDEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPFOLIO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-09939-MWF-MAR (C.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2025). The case is assigned to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald, and referred to Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi. AppFolio, Inc. provides cloud-based software solutions. The Company offers a cloud-based property management software that allows apartment and residential property managers to market, manage, and grow their business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber Love Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER AND KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law - and - Robert C Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER AND KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law - and - Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER AND KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 299-8207 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: sdixit@sjk.law APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFFINITY CREDIT UNION, et al., v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-04174-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether another party's materials should be sealed. The Plaintiffs bring this administrative motion pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, to partially file under seal Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Apple, Inc.'s Administrative Motion for Leave to File Newly Produced Evidence and Corresponding Supplemental Brief in Support of Apple's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Apple's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Christopher Vellturo, PhD. Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ajtF6f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Ben M. Harrington, Esq. Mark T. Vazquez, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com benh@hbsslaw.com markv@hbsslaw.com - and - Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. Jeffrey H. Bergman, Esq. Phillip F. Cramer, Esq. Kathryn M. DeLong, Esq. Barry Frett, Esq. SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC 321 N. Clark St., 25th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 Facsimile: (312) 641-6492 E-mail: ekelly@sperlingkenny.com jvanek@sperlingkenny.com jbergman@sperlingkenny.com pcramer@ sperlingkenny.com kdelong@sperlingkenny.com bfrett@sperlingkenny.com APPLOVIN CORP: Faces Brownback Shareholder Suit in CA Court ----------------------------------------------------------- AppLovin Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on March 24, 2025, Ben Brownback filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, board members Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and/or Herald Chen asserting claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeking unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. The court subsequently appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel in the Brownback action, and the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on September 12, 2025, adding Basil Shikin as a defendant. The amended complaint alleged that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's advertising solutions and financial growth. It alleged a putative class period running from November 7, 2024 through March 27, 2025. Pursuant to the current scheduling order, the parties are to file submissions in support of, and in opposition to, the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss through early February 2026. AppLovin Corporation provides end-to-end advertising solutions and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California, and has several operating locations in the U.S. as well as various international office locations in North America, Asia, and Europe. APPLOVIN CORP: Quiero Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ AppLovin Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that in May 2025, plaintiff in a class action voluntarily dismissed the complaints filed in the Northern District of California. On March 5, 2025, Michael Quiero filed a complaint against the company, Adam Foroughi, and Matthew Stumpf in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, board members Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and/or Herald Chen asserting claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeking unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. AppLovin Corporation provides end-to-end advertising solutions and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California, and has several operating locations in the U.S. as well as various international office locations in North America, Asia, and Europe. APPLOVIN CORP: WCERS Drops Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------- AppLovin Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that in May 2025, plaintiff in a class action voluntarily dismissed the complaints filed in the Northern District of California. On April 17, 2025, the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System filed the third complaint against the Company, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and Herald Chen in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, board members Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and/or Herald Chen asserting claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeking unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. AppLovin Corporation provides end-to-end advertising solutions and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California, and has several operating locations in the U.S. as well as various international office locations in North America, Asia, and Europe. AVOCADO MATTRESS: Islas Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY ISLAS, ELIZABETH AMILL, and MATEO PETTYJOHN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AVOCADO MATTRESS LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05698-RGK-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 29, 2025 at 9:00 a.m., will move the Court to certify a class action. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following Class: "All persons who, during the statutory period, purchased one or more Avocado Green Mattresses advertised at a discount from the Defendant's website while in California." The Plaintiffs also seek to certify the following two Subclasses: (1) Class members who purchased an Avocado Green Mattress before Defendant added asterisks to its pricing in 2024, and (2) the Class members who purchased after the Defendant added the asterisks. The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of Elizabeth Amill, Ashley Islas, and Mateo Pettyjohn as class representatives and for the appointment of Dovel & Luner, LLP, as class counsel. Accordingly, Customers are told that the regular price of a selected mattress was, say, $1,399, but because of a 10% or $140 discount, they would pay only $1,259. These advertised discounts are deceptive because the purported regular prices are not really the regular prices. Instead, the mattresses are regularly sold at prices lower than the advertised list prices. The Defendant markets and sells Avocado Green mattresses online through its website. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f32gzV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com BETTERHELP INC: Parties Seek to Reset Class Cert Hearing Date ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc. (RE BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation to reset hearing date on motion for class certification and motions to strike. The Parties stipulate pursuant to Local Rule 6-2 to the Court entering an order, subject to Court approval, resetting the hearing date on the Motion for Class Certification and Motions to strike from Jan. 8, 2026, to Jan. 27 or 29, 2026. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=33zL8T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 Facsimile: (888) 341-5048 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com The Defendant is represented by: Livia M. Kiser, Esq. Jeffrey Hammer, Esq. Craig H. Bessenger, Esq. James A. Unger, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com jhammer@kslaw.com cbessenger@kslaw.com junger@kslaw.com BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Garcia Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON GARCIA, v. BLUESKY HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01617-CEF (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Fleming entered an order Granting Rule 23 Class Certification: "All hourly employees of Defendant Grace Managements Services, Inc. working in Ohio from August 13, 2019, to present whose shift pickup bonuses, sign-on bonuses, or shift differentials were not included in their regular rate of pay in weeks where they worked overtime. The Court also APPOINTS Plaintiff's counsel, Scott D. Perlmuter, as class counsel. The Plaintiff has offered a definition of the proposed class that is sufficiently definite and makes determination of class membership administratively feasible. Bluesky provides inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KPKkw9 at no extra charge.[CC] BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Car Owners Lose Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT DAVIS and DR. BRUCE BARTON, on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Case No. 2:19-cv-19650-MEF-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Farbiarz entered an order denying the car owners' motion to certify a nationwide class of: "All persons or entities in the United States who owned or leased one or more defective vehicles during the class period." Accordingly, people who bought certain cars came to believe that the car engines had a defect. So they sued, invoking, among other things, state consumer-fraud law. The Plaintiffs seek to apply New Jersey consumer-fraud law here nationwide, but they have not carried their burden of establishing that would be appropriate. BMW markets and sells motor vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nAvedR at no extra charge.[CC] BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY: Court Approves "Garcia" Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Benjamin Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Brigham Young University d/b/a BYU Broadcasting, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00188-AMA-DAO (D. Utah), Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen of the United States District Court for the District of Utah - Central Division granted final approval to a class action settlement and awarded attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and a service award to the Class Representative. Under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and solely for purposes of judgment on the proposed Settlement Agreement, the Court certified the Settlement Class as all individuals who, as persons in the United States, (1) had a Facebook account during the Class Period; (2) had a subscription (i.e., login credentials) to https://www.byutv.org during the Class Period; and (3) viewed videos on www.byutv.org during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class were counsel to the Settling Parties, and their employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, or any members of their immediate family; any government entity; Defendant, any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, any of Defendant's subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, or any members of their immediate family; any persons who, as of the date of the Settlement Agreement, have asserted claims against Defendant under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2710 (VPPA), through counsel other than Class Counsel; any persons who have released claims relating to the Action; the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson; and any persons who properly execute and timely request exclusion from the Settlement Class. The Court found that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) were satisfied for the following reasons: (1) the Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law and fact common to members of the Settlement Class that predominate over questions affecting only individual members (e.g., whether Defendant unlawfully disclosed to third parties Plaintiff's and Settlement Class Members' personally identifiable information without consent in a manner that violated the VPPA and whether Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members are entitled to uniform statutory damages under the VPPA); (3) Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class; (4) Plaintiff and Class Counsel have and will continue to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class; and (5) a settlement class action is a superior method of fairly and efficiently adjudicating this Action. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and for settlement purposes only, Plaintiff Benjamin Garcia was appointed Class Representative, and the following were appointed as Class Counsel: Carney, Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, including Allen Carney, Hank Bates, and Sam Jackson; Anderson & Karrenberg, P.C., including Jacob D. Barney; and Levi & Korsinsky LLP, including Mark Reich. The Court approved the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court specifically considered the factors relevant to class settlement approval pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, including whether (1) the Class Representative and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class; (2) the Settlement was negotiated at arm's length; (3) the relief provided for the Settlement Class is adequate, taking into account (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorneys' fees and costs, and Class Representative service award, including the timing of payment and any justification for the awards, and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (4) the Settlement treats Settlement Class Members equitably relative to each other. The Court found that the Class Representative and Class Counsel have adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class Members; the settlement consideration provided under the Settlement constitutes fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the Released Parties; the Settlement is the result of arm's-length negotiations by experienced, well-qualified counsel that included a mediation conducted by respected mediator Honorable Freda L. Wolfson (Ret.); the Settlement provides meaningful monetary and non-monetary benefits to Settlement Class Members and such benefits are not disproportionate to the attorneys' fees and expenses sought by Class Counsel; the benefits provided treat Settlement Class Members equitably and the proposed method of distributing such benefits to the Settlement Class is effective; and the Settlement is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances of this Action, including the risks, complexity, expense and duration of the Action, and the reaction of the Settlement Class. The Court found that the Notice Program, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and effectuated pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, as amended, satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), is reasonable, and provided due, adequate, and sufficient notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class Members. The Court reaffirmed its appointment of the Settlement Administrator, Simpluris Inc., to perform the functions and duties of the Settlement Administrator set forth in the Settlement and to provide such other administrative services as are reasonably necessary to facilitate the completion of the Settlement. Three individuals timely and validly requested exclusion from this Action and the Settlement Classes and were, therefore, excluded. Having considered the time and labor involved, the difficulty of the questions presented and undesirability of the case, the skill required and experience of Class Counsel, the contingent nature of the fee, awards in similar cases, the amount involved and results obtained, and the nature of the incurred expenses, the Court adjudged that, as agreed to in the Settlement Agreement and included within the Notice documents, the requested payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $516,165.00 is fair and reasonable. The Court further found that the requested Service Award to the Class Representative is fair and reasonable and approved a Service Award to the Class Representative in the amount of $5,000.00 to be paid in the manner and at the times set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Action was dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs. The Court directed the Parties to implement and consummate the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions. The Court retained exclusive, continuing, jurisdiction after the entry of this Order with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and this Order. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=05EDjZ from PacerMonitor.com CAKE 5332: Alvarez Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSANGELICA ALVAREZ and SHAHRAM SHAHANDEH, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. CAKE 5332, LLC, ABDUL HAMIDEH and AJTX MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00697-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g): 1. Certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the following classes: "All servers who worked at Missouri restaurants owned and operated by the Defendants from Oct. 28, 2019, to the present." 2. Certifying and appointing Plaintiff Rosangelica Alvarez as Class representative for the class seeking relief under Missouri Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Laws for the work he performed as a Missouri Laborer. 3. Designating and appointing the Plaintiff's counsel of record, the Hodgson Law Firm LLC and Grissom Miller Law Firm, LLC. 4. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order granting class certification in this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following class: All servers who worked at Missouri restaurants owned and operated by Defendants from October 28, 2019, to the present. The Plaintiffs bring this action as a hybrid state class/nationwide collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 201 et seq. and accompanying state and common law, RSMo 290.512. Cake 5332 is a regional international house of pancakes restaurant group. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cJ7bno at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3609 SW Pryor Rd. Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 600-0117 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com Barry R. Grissom, Esq. GRISSOM & MILLER LAW FIRM, LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 460 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 336-1213 Facsimile: (816) 384-1623 E-mail: barry@grissommiller.com CAPITOL FEDERAL: Continues to Defend Harding Class Suit in Kansas ----------------------------------------------------------------- Capitol Federal Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Harding putative class suit in the Third Judicial District Court, Shawnee County, Kansas. On November 2, 2022, the Bank was served a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Jennifer Harding, et al. vs. Capitol Federal Savings Bank (Case No. 2022-CV-00598), filed in the Third Judicial District Court, Shawnee County, Kansas against the Bank, alleging the Bank improperly charged overdraft fees on (1) debit card transactions that were authorized for payment on sufficient funds but later settled against a negative account balance (commonly known as "authorize positive purportedly settle negative" or "APPSN" transactions) and (2) merchant re-presentments of previously rejected payment requests. The complaint asserts a breach of contract claim (including breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing) for each practice and seeks restitution for alleged improper fees, alleged actual damages, costs and disbursements, and injunctive relief. On April 5, 2023, the district court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which issued an opinion on October 4, 2024 reversing the district court's ruling. On October 17, 2025, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Company assesses the liabilities and loss contingencies in connection with pending or threatened legal and regulatory proceedings on at least a quarterly basis and establishes accruals when it is believed to be probable that a loss may be incurred and that the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. Capitol Federal Financial, Inc. is a federally chartered savings institution based in Topeka, Kansas. CHARLES SCHWAB: Class Settlement in Corrente Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN CORRENTE, et al., v. THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00470-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mazzant entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Plaintiffs Jonathan Corrente, Charles Shaw, and Leo Williams are appointed as Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. Yavar Bathaee of Bathaee Dunne LLP and Christopher M. Burke of Burke LLP are appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The class action lawsuit arises from the merger between Charles Schwab and TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation. On June 2, 2022, Plaintiffs Jonathan Corrente, Charles Shaw, and Leo Williams, each individually and on behalf of approximately twenty-five million members, filed this action challenging the Merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Defendant is a multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lGMEeZ at no extra charge.[CC] COZY EARTH: Removes Hendrix Class Suit to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of GIAUNIE HENDRIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COZY EARTH HOLDINGS INC., filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washigton, County of King (Case No. 25-00002-24798-8-SEA) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Oct 16, 2025, 2025. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02019-RAJ. The case is assigned to Judge Richard A. Jones. Cozy Earth Holdings Inc. specializes in luxury bedding and loungewear, emphasizing softness and temperature regulation for a comfortable sleeping experience. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOESLY PC 121 SW Morrison Street Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-8521 Email: choesly@bargsinger.com - and - Jonas Bram Jacobson DOVEL & LUNER LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Email: jonas@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Meegan B Brooks, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP (SF) 100 Pine St Ste 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (628) 600-2250 Email: mbrooks@beneschlaw.com DELTA AIR LINES: Devaney Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHA R. DEVANEY and THOMAS A. BIERMANN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. and THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02186-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs move that the Court certify the proposed Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or (B), (b)(2), and (b)(3), appoint plaintiffs as class representatives, and pursuant to Rule 23(g), appoint Motley Rice and IKR as Class Counsel and Claggett & Sykes as local counsel. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following Class: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Employees who began receiving a JSA after Dec. 10, 2015 whose monthly benefit would be greater if calculated using the Applicable Mortality Table as defined in Internal Revenue Code section 417(e)(3)(B) in the year the participant started receiving benefits and the Applicable Interest Rate as defined in Internal Revenue Code section 417(e)(3)(C) in the August of the year before the participant started receiving benefits." Excluded from the Class are retirees whose benefits were subject to a qualified domestic relations order, Defendants, and any individuals who are subsequently determined to be fiduciaries of the Plan. The Court should certify this case as a class action because the proposed Class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rules 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and/or (b)(3). In two recent cases in which plaintiffs similarly alleged they were not receiving actuarially equivalent JSAs under ERISA, the courts certified classes that were much like the classes proposed here. The Plaintiffs allege that formulae the Plan uses to calculate JSAs are inconsistent with current mortality and interest rates, and generate JSA benefits that are less than actuarially equivalent amounts. The Plaintiffs allege that Delta (the Plan’s sponsor and named fiduciary) and the Administrative Committee (the Plan’s administrator) violated ERISA by paying JSAs that are less than actuarially equivalent amounts, and that their monthly benefit amounts should be increased to satisfy ERISA’s actuarial equivalence requirement. Delta Air provides scheduled air transportation for passengers, freight, and mail over a network of routes. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eePQ4i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD KINDALL & RAABE 29 S. Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com - and - Michael J. Gayan, Esq. CLAGGET & SYKES 4101 Meadows Lane, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89107 Telephone: (702) 333-7777 E-mail: mike@claggetlaw.com - and - Douglas P. Needham, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 218-2720 E-mail: dneedham@motleyrice.com DELTA AIR LINES: Seeks to File Unredacted Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHA R. DEVANEY and THOMAS A. BIERMANN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. and THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02186-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to file unredacted document under seal. Pursuant to Rules 5.2 and 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule IA 10 5(a) and the Protective Order issued in this action on February 28, 2024 (ECF 72), the Plaintiffs move this Court for leave to lodge under seal the unredacted Expert Report of Ian H. Altman. Under Section 6(a) of the Protective Order, documents containing confidential information shall be filed under seal in accordance with Local Rule IA 10-5. The Plaintiffs have filed these documents under seal, in accordance with the Court’s ECF System, with the instant motion. Plaintiffs have publicly filed a redacted version of this document with the Court and will serve an unredacted versions of the document on Defendants, in accordance with LR IC 4-1(c)(4). Delta Air provides scheduled air transportation for passengers, freight, and mail over a network of routes. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OOQbJ9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD KINDALL & RAABE 29 S. Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com - and - Michael J. Gayan, Esq. CLAGGET & SYKES 4101 Meadows Lane, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89107 Telephone: (702) 333-7777 E-mail: mike@claggetlaw.com - and - Douglas P. Needham, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 218-2720 E-mail: dneedham@motleyrice.com DONALD TRUMP: Thakur Seeks Provisional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thakur, et al., v. Donald Trump et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04737-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 18, 2025, will move the Court for an Order granting a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification. The Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification for University of California researchers whose Department of Energy grants Plaintiffs allege were terminated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution. The Court has provisionally certified the Equity Termination Class, the Form Termination Class, the Second Equity Termination Class, and the Second Form Termination Class. The Plaintiffs propose two additional classes relating to DOE: Third Form Termination Class. "All University of California researchers, including faculty, staff, academic appointees, and employees across the University of California system who are named as principal researchers, investigators, or project leaders on the grant applications for previously awarded research grants by the DOE that are terminated by means of a form termination notice that does not provide a grant-specific explanation for the termination that states the reason for the change to the original award decision and considers the reliance interests at stake, from and after Jan. 20, 2025." Excluded from the class are the Defendants, the judicial officer(s) assigned to this case, and their respective employees, staffs, and family members. Equal Protection Termination Class. "All University of California researchers, including faculty, staff, academic appointees, and employees across the University of California system who are named as principal researchers, investigators, or project leaders on the grant applications for previously awarded research grants by the DOE that were included in the 314 grants that DOE terminated on or around Oct. 2, 2025, which the Plaintiffs allege was done in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment." Excluded from the class are Defendants, the judicial officer(s) assigned to this case, and their respective employees, staffs, and family members. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated that all Rule 23(a) requirements, as well as the Rule 23(b)(2) requirement, are satisfied for the new proposed classes. The Court should provisionally certify the Third Form Termination Class and Equal Protection Termination Class and appoint Drs. Atanassov and Bedsworth as class representatives. By refusing to spend money that Congress appropriated in the manner that Congress specified, Defendants are violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the appropriations statutes underlying DOE's funding schemes. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CSFORA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erwin Chemerinsky, Esq. Claudia Polsky, Esq. U.C. BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW Law Building Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 Telephone: (510) 642-6483 E-mail: echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu cpolsky@law.berkeley.edu - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Kevin R. Budner, Esq. Annie M. Wanless, Esq. Nabila M. Abdallah, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com rheimann@lchb.com kbudner@lchb.com awanless@lchb.com nabdallah@lchb.com - and - Anthony P. Schoenberg, Esq. Katherine T. Balkoski, Esq. Linda S. Gilleran, Esq. Kyle A. McLorg, Esq. Donald Sobelman, Esq. Dylan M. Silva, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 E-mail: tschoenberg@fbm.com kbalkoski@fbm.com lgilleran@fbm.com kmclorg@fbm.com dsobelman@fbm.com dmsilva@fbm.com - and - Erwin Chemerinsky Claudia Polsky U.C. BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW Law Building Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 Telephone: (510) 642-6483 E-mail: echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu cpolsky@law.berkeley.edu EXELON CORP: $40MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 18 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN RE EXELON CORPORATION DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Case No. 21-cv-03611 Hon. John Robert Blakey SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF COMMON STOCK OF EXELON CORPORATION ("EXELON" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF JUNE 9, 2023. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION AND THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE DERIVATIVE ACTION. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED , pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 23.1") and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court"), that a proposed Settlement 1 has been reached by the Settling Parties 2 in the above-captioned shareholder derivative action now pending before the Court brought on behalf of Exelon. The Settlement would resolve all claims asserted in the consolidated derivative action captioned In re Exelon Corporation Derivative Litigation , No. 1:21-cv-03611 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 8, 2021) 3 ("Consolidated Derivative Action"), as well as all claims described in the Demand Letters (as defined in the Stipulation) and any other future action relating to or arising out of the conduct at issue or described in the Consolidated Derivative Action, the Demand Letters, or the investigation of the Special Litigation Committee ("SLC") appointed by Exelon's Board of Directors. This Summary Notice of Proposed Settlement ("Summary Notice") is provided by order of the Court. The Consolidated Derivative Action, brought derivatively on behalf of Exelon, alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of federal securities laws against the Individual Defendants and various current and former Company officers, directors, and employees, as well as third parties, relating to or arising out of the conduct set forth in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA") (as defined in the Stipulation) and/or the Demand Letters. In response to the Demand Letters and pursuant to 15 Pa. C.S. Sec. 1783(a), the Board of Exelon established the SLC to investigate and address the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations by Exelon and ComEd officers and directors related to the conduct described in the DPA. The SLC represents that, over the course of nearly two years, it conducted a thorough, probing, and entirely independent investigation of all issues raised in the Demand Letters, which included significant document review and a substantial number of witness interviews. Pursuant to 15 Pa. C.S. Sec. 1783(e), the SLC determined that the Settlement is in the best interests of the Company. On May 18, 2023, the SLC unanimously approved a resolution reflecting its recommendation that the Company should settle and dismiss the claims raised in the Consolidated Derivative Action, and any other future action(s) relating to or arising out of the conduct at issue or described in the Consolidated Derivative Action, the Demand Letters, or the investigation of the SLC, on the terms set forth in the Stipulation. On May 19, 2023, the Independent Review Committee ("IRC"), which the Board previously formed to ensure that the Board's consideration of the SLC's recommendation would be completely independent and objectively in the best interest of the Company, unanimously approved a resolution reflecting its determination that the Settlement is in the best interests of the Company and recommending that the Board settle the matters raised in the Demand Letters and the Consolidated Derivative Action on the terms set forth in the Stipulation. On May 22, 2023, the Board unanimously approved a resolution reflecting the Board's acceptance of the IRC's determination that the Settlement is in the best interest of the Company and the Board's adoption of the SLC's determination that the Company should settle and dismiss the claims raised in the Demand Letters and the Consolidated Derivative Action on the terms set forth in the Stipulation. On June 9, 2023, Plaintiffs, Defendants, the SLC, and the IRC executed the Stipulation. If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, Exelon shareholders will be forever barred from contesting the Settlement and from pursuing the Released Claims. In consideration for the full and final release, settlement, and discharge of any and all Released Claims and the dismissal with prejudice of the Consolidated Derivative Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, the Settling Parties have agreed (i) to a monetary payment of $40 million paid by the Company's insurers to the Company; and (ii) that Exelon will implement and/or maintain certain corporate governance reforms as set forth in Exhibit A of the Stipulation. The Company has decided in its business judgment to use $30 million of these insurance proceeds to fund a portion of the $173 million securities settlement in the action captioned Flynn v. Exelon Corp ., Case No. 1:19-cv-08209 (N.D. Ill.). To date, Plaintiffs' Counsel have not received any payment for their efforts or for the expenses they incurred in pursuing the Consolidated Derivative Action on behalf of Exelon and its shareholders. In recognition of Plaintiffs' Counsel's role in prosecuting the Consolidated Derivative Action, Exelon agrees to cause its insurers to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel in the total amount of $10,000,000 (the "Fee and Expense Amount"), subject to the Court's approval. On March 18, 2026 at 11:00 a.m., the Court will hold the Settlement Hearing before the Honorable John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Courtroom 1203 of the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604. The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to determine: (i) whether the Settlement is appropriate and in the best interests of Exelon and its shareholders and should be approved pursuant to 15 Pa. C.S. § 1783 and the procedural notice provisions of Rule 23.1; (ii) whether a Final Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit F to the Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, should be entered dismissing the Consolidated Derivative Action with prejudice, and settling and releasing, and barring and enjoining the commencement or prosecution of any action asserting any Released Claims, as set forth in the Stipulation; (iii) whether the Fee and Expense Amount to the Plaintiffs' Counsel set forth in paragraph 5.1 of the Stipulation should be approved and whether the Court should award any requested service awards to the Plaintiffs; and (iv) such other matters as may be necessary and proper under the circumstances. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU CURRENTLY HOLD EXELON STOCK, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE ACTION. PLEASE ALSO NOTE : Because the Settlement involves the resolution of a shareholder derivative action, which was brought on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company, the benefits from the Settlement will go to Exelon. Individual Exelon Shareholders will not receive direct payment from the Settlement. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO PROOF OF CLAIM FORM FOR SHAREHOLDERS TO SUBMIT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SETTLEMENT. SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS SUMMARY NOTICE. This Summary Notice provides a condensed overview of certain provisions of the Stipulation and the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of the Consolidated Derivative Action (the "Notice"). It is not a complete statement of the events related to the Consolidated Derivative Action, the Demand Letters, the SLC's investigation, or the terms set forth in the Stipulation. This Summary Notice should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the Stipulation. A more detailed description of the Consolidated Derivative Action and the Settlement is set forth in the Stipulation as well as in the full Notice. Copies of the Stipulation and the Notice will be posted to Exelon's website: https://www.exeloncorp.com . You may also inspect the Stipulation and other papers in person at the Clerk's office in the Court, located at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, at any time during business hours. If you have questions regarding this Summary Notice, the Consolidated Derivative Action, or the Settlement, you may write, call, or email Plaintiffs' Counsel at the addresses listed below. You may enter an appearance before the Court, at your own expense, individually or through counsel of your choice. If you want to object at the Settlement Hearing, you must be an Exelon Shareholder and you must first comply with the procedures for objecting set forth in the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and the Notice. Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and provided to the counsel for the Settling Parties no later than March 4, 2026, or fourteen (14) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing , in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement. No Exelon Shareholder shall be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless such stockholder has filed with the Court and counsel for the Settling Parties a written notice of objection containing the following information: 1. Your name, legal address, and telephone number, and if represented by counsel, the contact information for such counsel; 2. The case name and number ( In re Exelon Corporation Derivative Litigation , No. 21-cv-3611 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 8, 2021)); 3. Proof of being an Exelon Shareholder as of June 9, 2023; 4. The date(s) you acquired your Exelon shares and proof of holding shares of Exelon common stock through the date the objection is made and as of the date of the Settlement Hearing (March 18, 2026); 5. A written, detailed statement of each objection being made; 6. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing, and if you intend to appear, the specific grounds or reasons explaining why you desire to appear and be heard (you are not required to appear); 7. Copies of any papers you intend to submit with the names of any witness(es) you intend to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of their testimony; 8. Identification of any case in which you or your attorney, if any, has objected to a settlement in the last three (3) years; and 9. Proof of service signed under penalty of perjury. YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN MARCH 4, 2026 (fourteen (14) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing). The Court Clerk's address is: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 YOU ALSO MUST DELIVER COPIES OF THE MATERIALS TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL, COUNSEL FOR THE SLC, COUNSEL FOR THE IRC, AND COUNSEL FOR EXELON AND THE NAMED DEFENDANTS LISTED BELOW SO THEY ARE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MARCH 4, 2026 (fourteen (14) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing). Counsels' addresses are: James Ficaro The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 (610) 225-0206 jficaro@weiserlawfirm.com Counsel for Michael Dybas Melinda A. Nicholson Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 (504) 455-1400 melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com Counsel for William Grunze Andrew J. Levander Joni S. Jacobsen 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Direct +1 212 698 3683 Direct + 1 212 698 3680 andrew.levander@dechert.com joni.jacobsen@dechert.com Counsel for the Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Exelon Corporation James P. Rouhandeh Edmund Polubinski III Mari Grace Byrne DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10021 (212) 450-4000 rouhandeh@davispolk.com edmund.polubinski@davispolk.com mari.grace@davispolk.com Counsel for Nominal Defendant Exelon and Defendants Christopher M. Crane, Joseph Dominguez, William A. Von Hoene, Jr., Anthony K. Anderson, Ann C. Berzin, Laurie Brlas, Yves De Balmann, Nicholas DeBenedictis, Linda Jojo, Paul Joskow, Robert J. Lawless, Richard W. Mies, Mayo A. Shattuck III, Stephen D. Steinour, and John F. Young Rusty E. Glenn Shuman, Glenn & Stecker 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 (303) 861-3003 rusty@shumanlawfirm.com -and- Gustavo F. Bruckner Pomerantz LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 (212) 661-1100 gfbruckner@pomlaw.com Counsel for Benjamin Jason Wax John F. Savarese Ian Boczko Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 (212) 403-1235 JFSavarese@wlrk.com IBoczko@wlrk.com Counsel for the Independent Review Committee of the Board of Exelon Corporation Unless the Court orders otherwise, your objection will not be considered unless it is timely filed with the Court and delivered to the counsel identified above in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Stipulation and Notice. Any Exelon Shareholder who fails to object in accordance with such procedures will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of the Court granting final approval to the Settlement and the releases of claims therein, and shall be deemed to have waived the right to object (including the right to appeal) and forever shall be barred, in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, from raising such objection. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS SUMMARY NOTICE. DATED: November 18, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Exelon (Nasdaq: EXC) is a Fortune 200 company and one of the nation's largest utility companies, serving more than 10.7 million customers through six fully regulated transmission and distribution utilities -- Atlantic City Electric (ACE), Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), Delmarva Power & Light (DPL), PECO Energy Company (PECO), and Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco). Exelon has 20,000 employees. FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sullivan-Blake Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ANGEL SULLIVAN-BLAKE; and HORACE CLAIBORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01914-SPM (W.D. Pa., Oct. 16, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. operates a package pickup and delivery business servicing customers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Michelle Cassorla, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com mcassorla@llrlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 11, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY BURKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY and GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00584-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Truncale entered a scheduling order as follows: Deadline for motions to transfer: Dec. 1, 2025 Deadline to add parties without leave Jan. 5, 2026 of court: Deadline to complete Phase I discovery Oct. 2, 2026 related solely to certification: Deadline to file Motion to Certify Class: Dec. 11, 2026 Deadline to file defendant(s) must file Feb. 19, 2027 Response in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: Deadline to file plaintiff(s) must file Mar. 19, 2027 Reply in Further Support of Motion for Class Certification: General is an American multinational automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DMaorY at no extra charge.[CC] JANI-KING INT'L: Amended Class Certification Sched Order Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cossette v. Jani-King International Inc. (RE JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 3:25-cv-01057-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Godbey entered an amended class certification scheduling order as follows: The Plaintiffs must serve on defendants (but NOT file with the Court) their motion for class certification within 230 days of this Order. Any motions for leave to join additional parties must be filed within 30 days of the date of this Order. Any motion for leave to amend pleadings under Rule 15(a) must be filed within 60 days of this Order. Any motion for leave to amend pleadings after that date must show good cause pursuant to Rule 16(b). All discovery except regarding class certification is stayed. The parties may by written agreement alter the deadlines and limitations in this paragraph, without the need for court order. No continuance of the Submission Date will be granted due to agreed extensions of these deadlines. The Parties desiring entry of a protective order under Rule 26(c) must either (a) request entry of an order in the Court’s standard form, which can be found at: www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/district-judge-david-godbey or (b) if entry of a protective order in a different form is requested, the motion must (1) explain why the Court’s standard form is inadequate in the particular circumstances of the case, and (2) include a redlined version of the requested form showing where it differs from the Court’s standard form. Jani-King is an American chain of commercial cleaning services franchises. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8h2zRl at no extra charge.[CC] LIFEMD INC: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in "Johnston" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Tyler Johnston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LifeMD, Inc., Justin Schreiber, and Marc Benathen, Defendants, 25 Civ. 09153 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Gehui Zhao's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as lead counsel for the class. The Court denied Emilio Tagua's competing motion. This is a securities fraud class action brought against LifeMD, Inc., LifeMD's Chief Executive Officer Justin Schreiber, and LifeMD's Chief Financial Officer Marc Benathen on behalf of a purported class of investors who allegedly sustained losses because of materially false statements made by LifeMD. The action involves allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Now pending before the Court are two competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff, brought by two individual members of the prospective class. Each movant also asks the Court to appoint their respective law firm as lead counsel for the class. On August 27, 2025, plaintiff Tyler Johnston filed a class action complaint. That same day, Johnston also posted notice in Business Wire in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, informing class members that they had 60 days, until October 27, 2025, to file a motion to serve as lead plaintiff in the securities class action. On October 27, 2025, four class members filed separate motions to be appointed as lead plaintiff, and for their respective law firms to be appointed as lead counsel for the class. It is undisputed that of these movants, Gehui Zhao claims the largest financial interest in the litigation, with $105,000.76 in alleged losses. On November 5 and November 10, 2025, movants John DiRoma and Sarah Minney filed notices of non-opposition, acknowledging that they do not have the largest financial interest and thereby would not contest the appointment of another movant as lead plaintiff. The only class members still seeking appointment as lead plaintiff are Zhao and movant Emilio Tagua. Zhao and Tagua filed briefs in support of their respective motions on October 27, 2025. On November 10, 2025, Zhao filed a renewed brief in support, and Tagua filed an opposition brief to Zhao's motion. Finally, on November 17, 2025, Zhao and Tagua each filed a reply. The PSLRA requires that a court shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be the most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members: in other words, the most adequate plaintiff. A plaintiff is presumed to be the most adequate plaintiff if plaintiff: (1) has either filed the complaint or made a timely motion in response to the publication of notice; (2) has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That presumption may be rebutted if another movant provides proof that the presumptive lead plaintiff will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class or is subject to unique defenses that render them incapable of adequately representing the class. All movants filed timely motions by October 27, 2025, within 60 days of the publication of notice. Accordingly, we look to the second requirement to determine the presumptive lead plaintiff: that the movant have the largest financial interest in the action. Zhao has represented that he suffered $105,000.76 in losses arising from his purchases of LifeMD stock in July and August of 2025. Upon learning of Zhao's claimed losses, movants DiRoma and Minney filed notices of non-opposition. Although movant Tagua, who only claims $13,313 in damages, does not contest that Zhao has the largest financial interest, he continues to oppose Zhao's motion. According to the Court "Zhao otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the typicality and adequacy requirements of the rule. In a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff, a class member need only make a preliminary showing that the Rule's typicality and adequacy requirements have been satisfied." Typicality is satisfied when each class member's claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability. Like the other members of the class, Zhao alleges that he purchased LifeMD stock during the class period, purchased those shares in reliance on LifeMD's alleged misrepresentations, and suffered damages as a consequence. These allegations are sufficient to satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule 23. The adequacy requirement is satisfied (1) if the proposed class counsel is qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation; (2) if the proposed lead plaintiff does not have interests that are antagonistic to other class members; and (3) if the proposed lead plaintiff and the class possess sufficient interest to pursue vigorous prosecution of their claims. Here, Zhao's counsel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, is an established firm with significant experience representing plaintiffs in complex securities fraud class actions. Also, there is no evidence that Zhao has interests adverse to the class, and the Court is confident that $105,000.76 in claimed losses will motivate Zhao to vigorously prosecute the case. Consequently, Zhao is entitled to a presumption that he is the most adequate plaintiff. a who continues to challenge Zhao's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. Although Tagua acknowledges that Zhao claims a larger financial interest, Tagua attempts to rebut the presumption in favor of Zhao on the ground that Zhao's first language is Mandarin and that, consequently, Zhao will not be able to meaningfully oversee class counsel. The Court sees no reason why Mr. Zhao would not be able to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class or be subject to unique defenses that render him incapable of representing the class, simply because his first language is Mandarin. First, Zhao has a working understanding of English even without a translator. Second, Zhao and Hagens Berman have represented that to the extent Zhao requires translation assistance, counsel has and will continue to provide it. Even if Mr. Zhao were not a working professional who has taken college-level English courses, we have previously held that English language ability is no impediment to adequately representing a class. Other courts have likewise held that a tenuous grasp of the English language is insufficient to render a putative class representative inadequate. Mr. Tagua has cited no caselaw to the contrary. Zhao also moves to appoint Hagens Berman as class counsel. In considering this request, there is a strong presumption in favor of approving a properly-selected lead plaintiff's decisions as to counsel selection. Having reviewed Hagens Berman's firm resume, including its extensive experience representing plaintiffs in complex securities class actions, the Court concludes it is well-qualified to serve as lead counsel in this case. For the preceding reasons, Zhao's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of Hagens Berman as lead counsel is granted, and Tagua's competing motion is denied. A copy of the Court's decision dated November 25 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PHQzqA from PacerMonitor.com META PLATFORMS: Filing of Declaration Docs Under Seal Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER L. COOK, d/b/a JL Cook, JL Cook Sculptor, and SNAKEARTS.COM, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., F/K/A FACEBOOK, INC. Case No. 3:22-cv-02485-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing Meta to file Tack Declaration documents under seal. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JGcR4S at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. June P. Hoidal, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. Charles R. Toomajian, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com june.hoidal@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com caleb.marker@zimmreed.com charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com - and - Jonathan L. Hardt, Esq. James F. McDonough, III, Esq. ROZIER HARDT MCDONOUGH PLLC 712 W. 14th Street, Suite C Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (210) 289-7541 E-mail: hardt@rhmtrial.com jim@rhmtrial.com MISSOURI: Darrington Suit Seeks to Certify Classes -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA DARRINGTON, as next friend for M.R., et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04268-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: (i) Certifying an Evaluation Class, defined as: "All people who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in Missouri state court and for whom a court has ordered or granted a request for a competency evaluation and who are: (a) currently detained in a county or city jail or similar facility, and (b) placed on a waitlist for competency evaluation services by DMH but who have not received evaluation services within a constitutionally- acceptable time." (ii) Certifying a Restoration Class, defined as: "All people who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in Missouri state court and are: (a) declared not competent to proceed to trial by the state court; (b) currently detained in a county or city jail or similar facility; (c) court ordered to receive restoration services by DMH; and (d) awaiting, beyond a constitutionally- acceptable time, court ordered competency restoration services to be provided by DMH or its designees." (iii) Appointing the Plaintiff D.W. to represent the Evaluation Class; (iv) Appointing Plaintiffs M.R., K.M., M.T., O.J., and C.T. to represent the Restoration Class; and (v) Appointing undersigned counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiffs file this class action lawsuit to address systemic constitutional deficiencies with the provision of competency services through the Department of Mental Health ("DMH"). More specifically, the Plaintiffs challenge DMH's use of waitlists and unreasonable delays in conducting competency evaluations and providing competency restoration treatment. The Plaintiffs M.R., K.M., M.T., O.J., and C.T. have criminal charges pending in state court and, in the course of their prosecution, have been evaluated, deemed not competent to stand trial, and ordered to the DMH for treatment. Yet each remains in jail, without treatment. Missouri Department of Mental Health (DMH) manages, treats, and prevents intellectual and developmental disabilities, mental illness, and substance use disorder. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1iOR7F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy E. Malinowski, Esq. MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 906 Olive Street, Suite 420 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 254-8540 Facsimile: (314) 254-8547 E-mail: amy.malinowski@macarthurjustice.org - and - Gillian R. Wilcox, Esq. Jason Orr, Esq. Kristin M. Mulvey, Esq. Jonathan D. Schmid, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 406 West 34th Street, Suite 420 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 470-9938 Facsimile: (314) 652-3112 E-mail: gwilcox@alcu-mo.org jorr@aclu-mo.org kmulvey@aclu-mo.org jschmid@aclu-mo.org - and - Maureen Hanlon, Esq. Ebony McKeever, Esq. ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (855) 724-2489 ext. 1008 Facsimile: (314)-925-1307 E-mail: mhanlon@archcitydefenders.org emckeever@archcitydefenders.org - and - Brent Dulle, Esq. Kevin Cowling, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 8001 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1500 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 480-1500 Facsimile: (314) 480-1505 E-mail: Brent.Duelle@huschblackwell.com Kevin.Cowling@huschblackwell.com NAVIENT CORP: Ballard Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Memo --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, REBECCA VARNO, and MARK POKORNI, on behalf of themselves and the class members described herein, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., AND NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file the Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of class certification under seal As part of written discovery, Defendants have produced various records and documents that have been designated “confidential.” Additionally, ED and its agent, Maximus Education LLC, have designated as “confidential” the results of searches of its databases. In light of these designations, Plaintiffs seek leave to submit their Memorandum in Support of Class Certification and its exhibits under seal. The Plaintiffs intend to file a public version of these documents with redactions of any material designated as “confidential.” Navient is an American financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TRObaL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Fiorentino, Esq. FIORENTINO LAW OFFICES 6119 North Kenmore Ave., Ste. 410 Chicago, IL 60660 Telephone: (312) 305-2850 E-mail: anthony@fiorentinolaw.com - and - Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com - and - Carlo Sabatini, Esq. SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC 216 N. Blakely St. Dunmore, PA 18512 Telephone: (570) 341-9000 E-mail: carlo@sabatinilawfirm.com NAVIENT CORP: Ballard Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, REBECCA VARNO, and MARK POKORNI, on behalf of themselves and the class members described herein, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for certification of the following classes, subclasses, issues, and claims, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: 1. Certification of the classes and subclasses; 2. Appointment of Jill Ballard as class representative of the "Improper IDR Cancellation" class and its California subclass; 3. Appointment of Rebecca Varno as class representative of the "Modified Forbearance Class" and its New York subclass; 4. Appointment of Mark Pokorni as class representative of the "Improper Delay" class and its Illinois subclass; 5. Appointment of Daniel Edelman, Carlo Sabatini, and Anthony Fiorentino as class counsel for all classes; 6. Certification of all issues and claims stated above for class treatment under Rule 23. The Plaintiffs move for certification of the following classes and subclasses: "Improper IDR Cancellation" class a. On or after Jan. 16, 2012, the borrower was enrolled in an IDR plan. b. The borrower submitted an IDR renewal application, which was received by NSL within 90 days or less prior to the renewal deadline. c. The borrower's partial financial hardship status expired, at which time the borrower's payments were recalculated under the standard repayment plan. d. At the time the application received its first review, it was deemed complete. California Sub-class: "Members of the Class who were living in California when the events stated in subpart c. occurred." "Modified Forbearance Class" a. On or after Jan. 16, 2012, the borrower submitted an application to enroll in, or renew, an IDR plan. b. Within 60 days of Navient receiving the application, the borrower was enrolled in a discretionary forbearance, which was based on oral affirmation. c. At the time of enrollment in the discretionary forbearance, the borrower was not in default. New York Sub-class: "Members of the Class who were living in New York when the events stated in subpart b. occurred." "Improper Delay" Class a. On or after Jan. 16, 2012, the borrower applied to enroll in, or to renew, an IDR plan. b. The borrower submitted a completed IDR application, accompanied by proof of income, which was subsequently approved by Navient. c. Navient did not fully process the application until 45 days or more after it was received. Illinois Sub-class: "Members of the Class who were living in Illinois when the events stated in subpart c. occurred." Navient is an American financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l1AMpt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Fiorentino, Esq. FIORENTINO LAW OFFICES 6119 North Kenmore Ave., Ste. 410 Chicago, IL 60660 Telephone: (312) 305-2850 E-mail: anthony@fiorentinolaw.com - and - Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com - and - Carlo Sabatini, Esq. SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC 216 N. Blakely St. Dunmore, PA 18512 Telephone: (570) 341-9000 E-mail: carlo@sabatinilawfirm.com PEEK TRAVEL: Court Narrows Claims in Montgomery Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kayla Montgomery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Peek Travel, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01015-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Subramanian entered an order granting in part and denying part Peek's motion to dismiss. Mont gomery's claims for injunctive relief and for damages tied to ticket sales for the Color Factory are dismissed. The stay of discovery is lifted as to claims tied to the attractions mentioned in the complaint but remains in place for other attractions pending class certification. Within 14 days of this order, the parties shall submit a joint letter specifying a schedule for class-certification and summary-judgment motions. The Plaintiff Montgomery, on behalf of a putative class, sued an online ticket seller over alleged unlawful fees charged to consumers purchasing tickets to New York attractions. In January 2023, Montgomery purchased four tickets from to visit the Museum of Ice Cream (MOIC) in New York City. Peek operates as a booking software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8UNLFi at no extra charge.[CC] PERDUE FOODS: "Tripp" Plaintiffs Must Produce Tax Returns --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Barbara Tripp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Perdue Foods LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-00987-JMC (D. Md.), Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the Defendant's request for Plaintiffs' tax returns. The Plaintiffs asserted several claims against the Defendant based on the Defendant's alleged misclassification of them under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The discovery dispute centered on whether the Defendant could obtain Plaintiffs' tax returns from 2020 to the present. The Defendant propounded upon Plaintiffs a written discovery request for Plaintiffs' federal and state tax returns, specifically, their Schedule Cs and Schedule Fs as well as any other documents that constitute evidence, reflect, or refer to the amount and source of Plaintiffs' income and underlying business deductions and expenses. The Plaintiffs objected on the basis that the tax returns are subject to a qualified privilege. The parties also disputed whether Plaintiffs had waived the assertion of qualified privilege because Plaintiff Tripp is a party to a Georgia litigation against the Defendant and provided the tax returns in that case. The Court declined to find that Plaintiff waived the issue of qualified privilege and considered the arguments on the merits. The Court noted that courts in the Fourth Circuit disfavor the disclosure of tax returns. Accordingly, tax returns are subject to a qualified privilege. The majority rule that has emerged from federal case law is that a two-prong test should be applied to determine if the qualified privilege protecting tax returns is overcome. Under this test, tax returns are discoverable if (1) they are relevant to a matter in dispute; and (2) they are needed, because the information is not available from other sources. In the Fourth Circuit, the economic realities test governs the classification of the employment relationship in FLSA cases. The Defendant contended the tax returns are relevant evidence of (1) Plaintiffs' profits or losses from farming with respect to the agricultural exemption under the FLSA; (2) Plaintiffs' profits or losses from Plaintiff Tripp's business with Perdue or other businesses; and (3) how much she invested in her business, whether she outsourced her operations to employees she hired and how much she paid any such employees, whether she operated at a profit or loss given her business decisions, and what other business expenses she incurred and deductions she took. The Court found that Schedule F is clearly relevant to an agricultural exemption under the FLSA. With respect to Schedule C, the information would provide at least some evidence as to the economic reality of the relationship, namely factor five, the permanence of the working relationship. If, for example, Plaintiffs owned or operated many other businesses, this information would weigh against the permanence of the employment relationship. Plaintiff contended that the Defendant's own records are an alternative source. The Defendant argued that the Defendant's own records do not contain the same information as the Schedule Cs or Schedule Fs on the tax returns. The Court agreed that while the Defendant may possess documents that contain some financial records like contract terms, settlement statements, flock reports, and loans, Plaintiffs' tax returns are the most reliable source of Plaintiffs' financial relationship with the Defendant. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Plaintiffs shall comply with the Defendant's request for the Schedule C and Schedule F returns, with the limitation that the only relevant years are those in which the Plaintiffs performed work for Perdue. A copy of the Court's order dated November 19 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9zA423 from PacerMonitor.com REALPAGE INC: Bid to Enforce Class Action Waiver Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as In Re: RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 3071, Case No. 3:23-md-03071 (M.D. Tenn.), Chief United States District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted in part and denied in part the Multifamily Defendant's Motion to Enforce Class Action Waivers. The motion sought to enforce class action waivers in leases between certain Defendant and specific named Plaintiff, including Brandon Watters, Jeffery Weaver, Joshua Kabisch, Meghan Cherry, and Selena Vincin. If granted, the motion would strike class action allegations as to these Plaintiff. The Court granted the motion only as to Vincin but denied or limited enforcement for other Plaintiff because certain waivers may not apply at all, and most of the named Plaintiff entered into other leases after 2016 without a class action waiver. The Multifamily Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges that RealPage developed an integrated technology platform that provides software solutions for the multifamily housing market. RealPage rolled out its first revenue management software, YieldStar, after acquiring it from Camden Property Trust in 2002. From 2002 to early 2016, YieldStar operated as a rent advisory service. In early 2016, RealPage transitioned YieldStar to become a rent-setting software. RealPage then acquired Lease Rent Options from Rainmaker Group in 2017. It integrated LRO and YieldStar into a unified platform. In 2020, RealPage launched AI Revenue Management, a combination of its legacy revenue management platforms and a super-charged price optimization and revenue management tool. By using the RMS, RealPage's clients are able to price their units according to their collective goal of securing revenue lifts by increasing rents without regard for the typical market forces that drive supply and demand in a competitive environment. They do this by collectively agreeing to price their rental units in accordance with RealPage's RMS pricing recommendations, and controlling the supply of rental units by allowing a larger share of their units to remain vacant. This collective behavior has resulted in parallel pricing that cannot be explained by typical economic factors. Brandon Watters Rented from UDR (2019-2021) with no waiver, then from Lincoln Property (2021-2022). His lease stated only signed addenda were incorporated. Since he didn't sign the Class Action Addendum, the waiver cannot be enforced against him. Joshua Weaver Rented from Camden Property Trust (2017-2020). The class action waiver appeared under "Default by Owner" section about repairs/maintenance. Court found this placement created ambiguity about whether it applied to antitrust claims, so waiver not enforced. Later rented from Bell Partners without a waiver. Joshua Kabisch & Meghan Cherry Both had leases with Greystar containing clear waivers they signed, and other leases with different defendants without waivers. Court ruled the waivers only apply during their Greystar lease periods, not in perpetuity. They can pursue claims for periods covered by their non-waiver leases with other defendants. Selena Vincin Rented continuously from Creekside Village/CONTI (2015-2020). All three lease renewals contained clear waivers. She had no other leases without waivers. Court rejected her unconscionability arguments under Texas law and enforced the waiver, dismissing her claims entirely. Key Takeaway: Courts enforce waivers only when clear, properly signed, and unambiguous—but limit their scope to specific lease periods unless survival clauses exist. The Plaintiff allege that RealPage and its clients have formed an illegal price fixing cartel. It begins when RealPage touts its ability to help clients obtain the optimal price for housing units regardless of other normal market forces. RealPage's clients each separately contract with RealPage, paying RealPage periodic fees and, critically, providing RealPage their independent commercially sensitive pricing data. RealPage then applies its revenue management algorithm to this data pool of competitor information to recommend optimal rent prices for each of RealPage's clients. A copy of the decision dated 21st November 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ggekeJ from PacerMonitor.com REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- The RealReal, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the securities class action lawsuit pending in a California court. Beginning on September 10, 2019, purported shareholder class action complaints were filed against the Company, its officers and directors and the underwriters of its IPO in the San Mateo Superior Court, Marin County Superior Court, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 27, 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the shareholder class action. On November 5, 2021, plaintiff filed the executed stipulation of settlement and motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the federal court. On March 24, 2022, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On July 28, 2022, the court entered an order finally approving the settlement and dismissing the case. The financial terms of the stipulation of settlement provide that the Company will pay $11.0 million within thirty (30) days of the later of preliminary approval of the settlement or plaintiff's counsel providing payment instructions. The Company paid the settlement amount on March 29, 2022 with available resources and recorded approximately $11.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 under our Operating expenses as a Legal settlement. One of the plaintiffs in the Marin County case opted out of the federal settlement and is pursuing the claim in Marin County Superior Court. The stay of the state court case has been lifted, and the opt out plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2022 alleging putative class claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of the two shareholders who opted out of the settlement and those who purchased stock from November 21, 2019 through March 9, 2020, based on purported new revelations. The claims are for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. On February 23, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On July 22, 2025, the court entered an order denying the motion for class certification. On September 19, 2025, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the class certification decision, which appeal remains pending. While the Company intends to defend vigorously against this litigation, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense. For this reason, the Company cannot currently estimate the loss or range of possible losses it may experience in connection with this litigation. RESURGENT CAPITAL: Palmer Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ GARET PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P., Case No. 2:25-cv-09930-SRM-AJR (C.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Serena R. Murillo, and referred to Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin. Resurgent Capital Services, LP provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane , Jr. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Behzad Ben Mohandesi, Esq. YU MOHANDESI LLP 633 West 5th Street Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 377-5505 Facsimile: (213) 377-5501 Email: bmohandesi@yumollp.com STAR POWER: Garcia Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEIHARIK GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STAR POWER MARKETING GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04823-CH (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying the proposed Class, (2) appointing Ms. Garcia to serve as the Class Representative, and (3) appointing Perrong Law LLC, as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the classes as follows under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and for corresponding injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2): -- National DNC Class: "All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf of the Defendant encouraging the purchase of Star Power's goods or services, (3) within a 12-month period (4) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial." -- Pennsylvania Telemarketer Registration Act Class: "All persons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as determined through their area codes, who (1) received a telephone call from or on behalf of the Defendant, (2) at any time during which the Defendant was acting as a "telemarketer" but not licensed as a "telemarketer" with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, (3) at any time in the period that begins two years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial." The Plaintiff's analysis, which goes entirely unrebutted and uncontested, confirms that Defendant called Plaintiff and 2,891 other class members whose numbers were on the Do Not Call list, and Plaintiff and 6,674 other Pennsylvania class members without registering as telemarketers under Pennsylvania law anyway as part of the text messaging campaign at issue here. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iuom0a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 (CALL-LAW) Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com STERLING FUND: $4.85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COPIA INVESTMENT PARTNERS LTD., MASO CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED, BLACKWELL PARTNERS LLC – SERIES A, and STAR V PARTNERS LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STERLING FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, STERLING CAPITAL PARTNERS IV, L.P., SCP IV PARALLEL, L.P., AVI MEZZ CO., L.P., M. AVI EPSTEIN, R. CHRISTOPHER HOEHN-SARIC, and STEVE FIRENG, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All record and beneficial owners of shares of the Keypath Education International, Inc. ("Keypath" or the "Company") common stock (including holders of CHESS Depositary Interests ("CDIs")), except the Excluded Persons, whose Keypath shares or CDIs were exchanged for cash at the closing of the Merger.1 PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs Copia Investment Partners Ltd., Maso Capital Investments Limited, Blackwell Partners LLC – Series A, and Star V Partners LLC ("Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of the Class, have reached a proposed settlement with Defendants Sterling Fund Management, LLC, SCP IV Parallel, L.P., Sterling Capital Partners IV, L.P., and AVI Mezz Co., L.P. ("Sterling Partners" or the "Sterling Partners Defendants"), M. Avi Epstein, R. Christopher Hoehn-Saric, and Steve Fireng (the "Individual Defendants" and, with the Sterling Partners Defendants, "Defendants") for $4,850,000.00 (USD) in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release between Plaintiffs and Defendants dated September 24, 2025 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at www.keypathstockholdersettlement.com. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action as against Defendants. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on January 13, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by Zoom or other means (at the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for Settlement purposes only; (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and whether Plaintiffs should be finally appointed as Class Representatives for the Class and Plaintiffs' Counsel should be finally appointed as Counsel for the Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class and in their best interests; (iv) determine whether the proposed Order and Final Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered approving the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice, and granting the Releases provided under the Stipulation; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether and in what amount any award of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel ("Fee and Expense Award") should be paid out of the Settlement Fund; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award (the "Fee and Expense Application"); and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.keypathstockholdersettlement.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at Keypath Stockholder Settlement, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.keypathstockholdersettlement.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of Allocation, "Eligible Class Members" consist of (i) Eligible Beneficial Holders, the ultimate beneficial owners of any Eligible Shares held of record by the Clearing House Electronic Subregister System ("CHESS"), provided that no Excluded Persons[2] may be an Eligible Beneficial Holder, and (ii) Eligible Record Holders, the record holders of any Eligible Shares, other than CHESS, provided that no Excluded Persons may be an Eligible Record Holder. "Eligible Shares" means the shares of Keypath common stock, including CDIs, held at the September 11, 2024 Closing of the Merger that received $0.87 per share in cash (the "Merger Consideration"). Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares held by all Eligible Class Members. As explained in further detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class Members will be made in the same manner in which Eligible Class Members received the Merger Consideration. Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award in connection with the Settlement must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than December 30, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiffs' Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: Keypath Stockholder Settlement c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: Thomas Curry SAXENA WHITE P.A. 824 N. Market Street, Suite 1003 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (302) 485-0483 corpgov@saxenawhite.com Dated: November 14, 2025 SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH AMATO, et al., v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-16118-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Williams entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- The Court certifies four statewide subclasses (NY, AZ, IN, MI) as to the statutory consumer protection claims; and -- The Court certifies the negligent misrepresentation claims for the NY, AZ, and IN subclasses only; and -- The Court denies certification of the negligent misrepresentation claim for the MI subclass. Subaru wholesales and markets new and used cars. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bx5rUd at no extra charge.[CC] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Aquino Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO AQUINO, et al., v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00990-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Williams entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- The Court certifies four statewide subclasses (NY, AZ, IN, MI) as to the statutory consumer protection claims; and -- The Court certifies the negligent misrepresentation claims for the NY, AZ, and IN subclasses only; and -- The Court denies certification of the negligent misrepresentation claim for the MI subclass. Subaru wholesales and markets new and used cars. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PAlaTP at no extra charge.[CC] SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Decker Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Symbotic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending September 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Decker securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetss. On December 3, 2024, a putative class action captioned Decker v. Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12976 was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an alleged purchaser of the Company's common stock. The complaint asserted claims for violations of federal securities laws against the Company and three of its officers on the grounds that the Company made false and/or misleading statements related to its revenue recognition and the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures. On July 11, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint captioned Traina v. Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12196. Like the Decker complaint, the amended complaint asserts claims for violations of federal securities laws against the Company and four of officers of the Company on the grounds that the Company made false and/or misleading statements or omissions related to its financial results, deployment times, revenue recognition, and internal controls. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brought claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between February 8, 2024 and November 26, 2024. On May 5, 2025, the court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and setting a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and the Company's response to the complaint. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs bring claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of themselves and a putative class of persons who purchased stock of the Company between November 20, 2023 and February 5, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 11, 2025. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on November 11, 2025. The Company's reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss is due on December 11, 2025. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for December 16, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. Symbotic LLC is a Massachusetts corporation headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts, and doing business throughout North America. It has operations in 20 locations in the United States and Canada that include facilities focusing in robotics, machine learning, software engineering, and data analytics. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately September 2019 through September 17, 2024 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. [BN] SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Traina Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Symbotic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending September 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Traina securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetss. On July 11, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint captioned Traina v. Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12196. Like the Decker complaint, the amended complaint asserts claims for violations of federal securities laws against the Company and four of officers of the Company on the grounds that the Company made false and/or misleading statements or omissions related to its financial results, deployment times, revenue recognition, and internal controls. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs bring claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of themselves and a putative class of persons who purchased stock of the Company between November 20, 2023 and February 5, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 11, 2025. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on November 11, 2025. The Company's reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss is due on December 11, 2025. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for December 16, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. Symbotic LLC is a Massachusetts corporation headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts, and doing business throughout North America. It has operations in 20 locations in the United States and Canada that include facilities focusing in robotics, machine learning, software engineering, and data analytics. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately September 2019 through September 17, 2024 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. [BN] SYRACUSE HAULERS: Sims Suit Referred to Mandatory Mediation Program ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dillon Sims Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-01080-ECC-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katz entered an order referring case to mandatory mediation program: The Court finds the case is appropriate for referral to the Mandatory Mediation Program as provided in Section 2.1 of General Order 47. The deadline for completion of mediation is sixty (60) days after the Court issues an order deciding Plaintiffs motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The parties shall compensate the Mediator for services rendered pursuant to this Order in accordance with Section 4.4 of the Plan. Syracuse is a full service refuse company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ua5fek at no extra charge.[CC] TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Class Cert Filing Amended to Sept. 4, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARBUCKLE FUNDING LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE CO., Case No. 7:23-cv-07972-CS-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McCarthy entered a fourth amended discovery plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Expert depositions shall be completed by Sept. 3, 2026. -- All discovery shall be completed by Sept. 3, 2026. -- Any motions for class certification shall be filed no later than Sept. 4, 2026. -- Any oppositions to motions for class certification shall be filed no later than Oct. 23, 2026. -- Any replies in support of class certification shall be filed no later than Nov. 20, 2026. Talcott provides insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ag4qdr at no extra charge.[CC] TROY MEINK: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for Jan. 16, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN L. WATTS, et al., v. TROY E. MEINK, Case No. 1:25-cv-01093-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Davis entered an order granting consent motion to modify briefing schedule. The Defendant shall file his opposition to the Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel no later than December 5, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel no later than December 19, 2025. The date of the hearing for this Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel is moved to January 16, 2026. All other deadlines set forth in the Court's Sept. 8, 2025, Order remain in effect. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r2galw at no extra charge.[CC] TYSON FOODS: Awaits Court OK of Deal in Maryland Wage Rate Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting final court approval of the settlement entered into in the wage rate lawsuit pending in a Maryland court. "On August 30, 2019, a putative class of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants in the continental United States filed class action complaints against us and certain of our subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. "The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in violation of federal antitrust laws. Additional lawsuits making similar allegations were consolidated including an amended consolidated complaint containing additional allegations concerning turkey processing plants naming additional defendants. "On May 10, 2024 and June 3, 2024, the Company participated in mediation with the putative class plaintiffs. Following the mediation, on June 14, 2024, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the putative class plaintiffs to settle all claims in the case for an aggregate amount of $115.5 million. On February 11, 2025, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. "If the court grants final approval to the settlement, it will completely resolve all claims made against the Company in this matter. While we believe we have valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations, we believe that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. During fiscal 2025, settlement payments of the accrued amount were paid as a result of the preliminary court approval. At September 27, 2025, there was no remaining accrual related to the Poultry wage rate litigation matter," the Company stated. TYSON FOODS: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Beef Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court approval of a settlement entered into with indirect purchaser plaintiff class in the beef antitrust lawsuit. "Beginning on April 23, 2019, a series of class action complaints were filed against us and our beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. ("Tyson Fresh Meats"), as well as other beef packer defendants, in various federal district courts, including the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, by putative classes of direct purchasers, cattle ranchers, indirect purchasers, and indirect cattle producers. The putative classes in these cases allege that the defendants engaged in one or more conspiracies beginning in roughly January 2015 with the aim of reducing fed cattle prices, manipulating the price of live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, artificially increasing the cost of beef, and reducing the price of cows, cattle, calves, steers or heifers. "The putative classes allege that this conduct violated federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, the Commodities Exchange Act, and various state unfair competition, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws. Their complaints seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Since the original filing, certain putative class members have opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. These cases have been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for pretrial purposes. "The fact discovery phase ended in early April 2025, and the parties are now engaged in expert discovery. Additionally, the putative classes filed motions for class certification on September 25, 2024, which remain pending before the court. "On September 29, 2025, the Company reached an agreement with the consumer indirect purchaser plaintiff class to settle their claims in this matter for an aggregate of $55 million, subject to court approval," the Company stated. TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Beef Antitrust Suits in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against beef antitrust lawsuits pending in Canadian courts. "On February 18, 2022, a putative class action was commenced against us, Tyson Fresh Meats, and other beef packer defendants in the Supreme Court of British Columbia styled Bui v. Cargill, Incorporated et al. The putative class is comprised of direct and indirect beef purchasers in Canada between January 1, 2015 and the present, and alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, maintain, increase, or control the price of beef, as well as to fix, maintain, control, prevent, or lessen the production or supply of beef. "The complaint alleges a violation of the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the Civil Code of Quebec. It seeks declarations regarding the alleged conspiracy, general damages, aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and interest. "On March 24, 2022, a putative class action was commenced against the same defendants in the Superior Court of Quebec styled De Bellefeuille v. Cargill, Incorporated et al, raising substantially similar allegations and seeking compensatory damages, costs of investigation and interest," the Company stated. TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Pork Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the pork antitrust lawsuit. "Beginning June 18, 2018, a series of putative class action complaints were filed against us and certain of our pork subsidiaries, as well as several other pork processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation (the "Pork Antitrust Civil Litigation"). The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in violation of federal antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes. Since the original filing, certain putative class members have opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may try to do so in the future. "The Offices of the Attorney General in New Mexico and Alaska have filed complaints against us and certain of our pork subsidiaries, as well as several other pork processing companies and Agri Stats. The complaints are based on allegations similar to those asserted in the Pork Antitrust Civil Litigation and allege violations of state antitrust, unfair trade practice, and unjust enrichment laws based on allegations of conspiracies to exchange information and manipulate the supply of pork. On October 18, 2024, we reached a settlement with the State of Alaska to resolve all claims made against the Company for an immaterial amount. The court approved the settlement on January 7, 2025. On May 9, 2025, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the State of New Mexico to resolve all claims made against the Company for an immaterial amount. This agreement remains subject to Court approval. While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims that have been made, we believe that this settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. "In the third quarter of fiscal 2024, we filed and joined motions for summary judgment. On March 31, 2025, the court denied those summary judgment motions as to the claims against the Company. The Company anticipates multiple trials in this matter in various federal districts, with various classes of plaintiffs as well as opt-out plaintiffs, with the first trial expected to begin in fiscal 2026. While we believe we have valid and meritorious defenses to the claims that have been made in the Pork Antitrust Civil Litigation and the related Attorney General matters, we are exploring the possibility of entering into settlements as a way to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. On April 11, 2025, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the direct purchase class plaintiffs to settle their claims in this matter for an aggregate of $50 million. On April 28, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval of this settlement. On September 25, 2025, the Company reached an agreement with the consumer indirect purchaser class to settle their claims in this matter for an aggregate of $85 million, subject to court approval," the Company stated. TYSON FOODS: Settlement in Colorado Wage Rate Suit Has Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement entered into in the wage rate lawsuit pending in a Colorado court has received final approval in January. "On November 11, 2022, a putative class of employees at beef-processing and pork-processing plants in the continental United States filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our subsidiaries, as well as several other beef-processing and pork-processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of wages for employees in violation of federal antitrust laws. "On December 22, 2023, after a mediation between the parties, the Company and the putative class plaintiffs reached an in-principle agreement to settle. While we believe we have valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations, we believe that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay the putative class an aggregate amount of $72.5 million to completely resolve all claims made against the Company in this matter. The court approved the settlement on January 15, 2025. During fiscal 2024, the Company recorded an accrual for the $72.5 million settlement which was paid during fiscal 2025 as a result of the court approval," the Company stated. VIRTU FINANCIAL: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 22, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Virtu Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-03770-NGG-CHK (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the following modifications to the case schedule: Event Date The Defendants' opposition to class Jan. 22, 2026 Certification: Lead Plaintiff's reply in further March 26, 2026 support of class certification: Close of fact discovery: May 21, 2026 Identification of experts: June 15, 2026 Virtu is an American high-frequency trading company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WP7qiL at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Alison R. Benedon, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-2009 E-mail: abenedon@paulweiss.com WALT DISNEY: Class Suit Filed in C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against The Walt Disney Company, captioned as HANNAH BUI; JANICE LEBLANC; and TERESA CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Representation, Plaintiff v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY; DISNEY ENTERTAINMENT OPERATIONS LLC; DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC.; GOOGLE LLC; and YOUTUBE LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-09920-MWF-MAR (C.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2025). The case is assigned to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and referred to Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi. The Walt Disney Company operates as an entertainment and media enterprise company. The Company's business segments includes, media networks, parks and resorts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin B. Farar, Esq. KAPLAN FOX AND KILSHEIMER LLP 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 910 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 614-7260 Facsimile: (310) 575-8697 Email: jfarar@kaplanfox.com - and - Blair Elizabeth Reed, Esq. Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. Laurence D King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Walter B Howe, Esq. KAPLAN FOX AND KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Email: breed@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com whowe@kaplanfox.com WHITESTONE HOME: Mattress Contains Toxic Chemicals, Levin Says -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN LEVIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHITESTONE HOME FURNISHINGS, LLC, d/b/a SAATVA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05812-NGG-RML (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2025) is an action alleging the Defendant's deceptive marketing representations made about Saatva's crib mattress ("Product"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's advertising of the Product causes consumers to believe that the Product is chemical-free, natural, and eco-friendly. On the contrary, the Product is not chemical-free, natural, and eco-friendly. Instead, it contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), a group of synthetic chemicals that are extremely resistant to degradation, persist indefinitely in the environment, bioaccumulate in blood and body tissues, and can be harmful to humans and the environment, even at very low levels. Had the Defendant marketed its Product truthfully, consumers would not have purchased Product or would not have been willing to pay as much as they paid for the Product, says the suit. Whitestone Home Furnishings, LLC, d/b/a Saatva specializes in luxury mattresses with adjustable base, furniture, bedding, chairs, sofas, pillows. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Telephone: (914) 693-2018 Email: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com WOODRIDGE CAPITAL: Class Cert Filing Continued to March 16, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR CIFUENTES, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated and similarly aggrieved employees, v. WOODRIDGE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, an active California Limited Liability Company; ARYA STAFFING SERVICES, INC., an active California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 8:24-cv-01312-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's class certification motion filing deadline, currently set for Dec. 15, 2025, is continued to March 16, 2026. 2. The Defendants' opposition filing deadline, currently set for Feb. 15, 2026 is continued to May 15, 2026. 3. Hearing on the class certification motion, currently set for Mar. 17, 2026 is continued to June 16, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Woodridge is a broad-based real estate investment and development company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kaM54y at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***